The Compatibility of the Substance over Form Doctrine with Tax and Investment Treaties: A Case Study of Lone Star v the Republic of Korea

Abstract

Abstract In late August 2022, the Lone Star tribunal concluded one of the latest awards in tax-related investment treaty disputes (the tax-related claims account for almost USD 1.5 billion of the total of almost USD 4.7 billion claimed in compensation). It also is the first award in which the tribunal dealt with the application of the substance over form doctrine (SOFD) by tax authorities and courts of the host state to prevent the abuse of a double tax treaty (DTT), and the impact of the refusal to accord the claimants the benefits under the DTT via a domestic (Korean) SOFD on the investment protection standards under the bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The Lone Star tribunal implicitly considered the Korean SOFD to be a suitable rule to prevent abuses of the Korea-Belgium DTT and thus compatible with the BLEU-Korea BIT. This article critically analyses the tribunal’s methodology and reasoning in reaching that conclusion. Notably, the article highlights the need to consider the principle of an abuse of rights while examining the compatibility of a SOFD with a BIT and a DTT. Such an approach could enhance the rule of law in the interpretation of tax and investment treaties in other similar cases. It is also in accordance with the principle of systemic integration. The article argues that it is increasingly more important to properly understand the concept of economic substance insofar as denial of benefits (DoB) clauses in investment treaties and principal purposes test (PPT) in tax treaties appear to specifically prevent abuses of those treaties by arrangements with no or insufficient economic substance. Global and regional tax developments, including the implementation of anti-base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) rules, as well as Pillar Two rules (global minimum tax of 15%), strengthen the need for a comparative research on economic substance under tax and investment treaties. Such research may reveal that a convergence in denying benefits under DTTs and BITs will enhance the rule of law and increase legal certainty in tax and investment domains.